SURENDRASIH NARSIH SURYAWANSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Civil Application No. 2885/2012 seeking intervention in the Petition, at the instance of the applicant, is allowed. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the rival parties.

(2.) Mr. I.S. Charlewar, learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions submitted that the respondent-Zilla Parishad, Gondia, purportedly acting on the basis of Government Resolution dated 23.08.1996, gave reappointment to several candidates who were appointed prior to the said Government Resolution in the respondents Zilla Parishads. The names with relevant dates of their original appointment as Peon in Class IV have been given from Sr. Nos. 1 to 20 and 25 at Pages 65 & 66 of the paper-book. Based on these dates, Mr. Charlewar, learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is no reason why the petitioners should not be given a similar treatment by making their re-appointments with effect from their original dates of appointment as Peon or Class IV employee. According to him, it amounts to hostile and invidious discrimination. Mr. Charlewar fairly states that all the petitioners were originally appointed in Class IV cadre before 23.08.1996. He, therefore prayed for grant of re-appointment of petitioners effective from original date of appointment in Class IV cadre and consequent benefit including monetary benefits.

(3.) Per contra, S/Shri A.Y. Kapgate, R.A. Gupte, learned counsel and Mr. M.A. Kadu, learned A.G.P. for the respective respondents have opposed the Writ Petitions. Mr. Kapgate, learned counsel for the respondent Zilla Parishad, Gondia, submitted that the Government Resolution dated 23.08.1996 vide paragraph 7 thereof stipulates that it is clearly prospective in nature and benefits as contemplated by paragraph 4 thereof, cannot be given to those who were appointed prior to the said date, namely, 23.08.1996 as per the said policy decision of the State Government. When confronted with the data pointed out by counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kapgate, learned Advocate for respondent-Zilla Parishad, Gondia stated that the benefits given to candidates at Sr. Nos. 1 to 20 and 25 at pages 65 and 66 of the Paper-book will have to be verified whether the same are contrary to the said Govt. Resolution; and Zilla Parishad, Gondia will take suitable action, if necessary, by making reference to the State Government. We have heard at length the submissions made by the counsel for the rival parties and we have perused the Govt. Resolution dated 23.08.1996. To our mind, the said Govt. Resolution is in the nature of a policy decision in respect of the appointments/re-appointments in Class III and class IV cadre on compassionate ground. Paragraphs of the said Govt. Resolution provides for reappointment in Group "C" i.e. Class III posts. It appears that the re-appointments were effective from the original date of appointment in Class IV cadre and perhaps even with the arrears of difference or monetary benefits between the two posts. Be that as it may, in so far as the present petitioners are concerned they do not at all fall in the realm of the said Govt. Resolution inasmuch as paragraph 7 of the G.R. is prospective in nature. Since the petitioners were appointed originally in Class IV cadre prior to 23.8.1996, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by Mr. Charlewar. We do not agree with Mr. Charlewar that merely because some persons were wrongly given the benefits, the hostile discrimination can be inferred. On the contrary, we find that the appointments of candidates at Sr. Nos. 1 to 20 and 25 are contrary to the paragraph 7 of the Govt. Resolution. Mr. Kapgate has made a statement that action would be taken to correct the errors or mistakes in respect of all those cases. We accept statements made by him. However, so far as the petitioners are concerned, they are not entitled to any relief. That being so, we make the following order: